I refer to your report Let independent commission probe Metramac web .

Anwar Ibrahim's lawyer, Sankara Nair said that Halim Saad's statement bordered on contempt of court as it made direct insinuations against a respectable senior judge and that he should be issued a show-cause order as to why he should not be cited for contempt of court.

Transparency International Malaysian Chapter president Param Cumaraswamy, also a lawyer by profession, appeared to agree stating that Halim's statement '... may have gone a little too far in the manner in which he criticised the judgment'.

I am curious about this contempt that these lawyers are threatening. It is understandable that criticisms should not unwarrantedly be made against a judge or court to lower their dignity. Without respect from the public, the administration of justice cannot be carried out. This is one important principle. The law on contempt of court is to preserve this principle.

However, the excuse of 'dignity of the court' cannot be used to silence all reasonable criticisms of a judgment or portions of it that are factually incorrect or logically untenable. The power of a court to commit any person for contempt should only be exercised most sparingly. It should not be used to protect the personal ego of a judge or to harass and intimidate those who reasonably disagree with him.

There are other competing principles to be balanced against, which are held just as important if not more importantly than the principle of the dignity of the court. One such principle cherished in a democratic society is the freedom to speak the truth especially in matters that have become of public and national interest.

How could the right to freedom of speech, the truth or public interest be less important when compared to the other imperative of the dignity of the court? It is hard to imagine that a court that does not act or decide appropriately can be shielded from public or media criticisms by the mere expedience of wielding the big stick of "contempt of court" against critics. To allow it to do so is to take the slide back towards being a totalitarian society.

The other principle which has to be balanced against the dignity of the court is the basic principle of law called the law of natural justice. The law of natural justice is the law that accords to a person the fundamental right to be heard, to be in the position to adequately defend himself when accusations are made against him in a manner such that his freedom, dignity and reputation will be taken away from him as a result of the accusations.

(One of the alleged four underworld 'heavenly kings', Tee Yam, was released because the Federal Court decided that police's procedures had not accorded him the basic right to defend himself adequately).

Courts apply and uphold the rules of natural justice, as they should at all times. And one of the rules to natural justice is the right for one's own version to be heard a verdict is handed down.

I believe Halim Saad is asserting and reminding all concerned of him being deprived of the right to be heard before being condemned as flirting with aggravated criminal breach of trust. He says clearly in his nine-page statement.

We may not know him. We may not even like him. We may even believe that he was consistently a recipient of political patronage to be such a rich man. In spite of all these, we must respect and uphold his inherent right to defend himself and his reputation. He ought to be entitled no less than any other to the basic right to be heard before being condemned.

Seen in this light, is there any thing wrong in him in making his nine-page statement? I don't think so. His critics, who are lawyers, should know better than to threaten him with the law of contempt of court .

The law on contempt of court is certainly not contemptuous of any form of justice especially natural justice. The law of contempt cannot be contemptuous of public interest. This is especially so where, as stated by Halim, '... the matters are of public interest and issues, already in the public domain'.